Journal of laparoendoscopic & advanced surgical techniques. Part A · 2017
Laparoscopic Versus Open Restorative Proctocolectomy for Familial Adenomatous Polyposis.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Campos Fábio Guilherme, Real Martinez Carlos Augusto, Monteiro de Camargo Mariane Gouveia, Cesconetto Daniele Menezes, Nahas Sérgio Carlos, Cecconello Ivan
Аннотация
PURPOSE: This study compared outcomes after laparoscopic (LAP) or conventional (open) total proctocolectomy with outcomes after ileal J-pouch anal anastomosis (IPAA) at a single institution.
METHODS: Charts from 133 familial adenomatous polyposis patients (1997-2013) were reviewed. Demographic data (age, sex, color, American Society of Anesthesiologists [ASA] status, previous surgery, and body mass index) and surgical outcomes (length of stay, early and late morbidity, reoperation, and mortality rates) were compared among 63 patients undergoing IPAA.
RESULTS: Demographic features were similar among patients (25 open and 38 LAP). Conversely, colorectal cancer at diagnosis prevailed in the open group (60% versus 31.6%; P = .02). Tumor stages (P = .65) and previous surgery index (20% versus 10.5%; P = .46) were similar. Surgical length was longer for LAP (374 versus 281 minutes, P = .003). Short-term complication rates (28% versus 28.9%), hospital stay (10.9 versus 8.9 days), and total long-term reoperations (28% versus 21%) were not statistically different. However, major late morbidity (16% versus 2.6%; P < .001) and late reoperation rates (16% versus 5.2%; P < .05) were greater among open patients. Both groups did not differ regarding pouch failure rates (8% versus 5.2%). There was no operative mortality in the present series.
CONCLUSIONS: (1) LAP IPAA is a safe procedure associated with a low conversion rate, (2) short-term results showed no clear advantages for both approaches, and (3) a greater risk of major late complications and late reoperations should be expected after open procedures.
METHODS: Charts from 133 familial adenomatous polyposis patients (1997-2013) were reviewed. Demographic data (age, sex, color, American Society of Anesthesiologists [ASA] status, previous surgery, and body mass index) and surgical outcomes (length of stay, early and late morbidity, reoperation, and mortality rates) were compared among 63 patients undergoing IPAA.
RESULTS: Demographic features were similar among patients (25 open and 38 LAP). Conversely, colorectal cancer at diagnosis prevailed in the open group (60% versus 31.6%; P = .02). Tumor stages (P = .65) and previous surgery index (20% versus 10.5%; P = .46) were similar. Surgical length was longer for LAP (374 versus 281 minutes, P = .003). Short-term complication rates (28% versus 28.9%), hospital stay (10.9 versus 8.9 days), and total long-term reoperations (28% versus 21%) were not statistically different. However, major late morbidity (16% versus 2.6%; P < .001) and late reoperation rates (16% versus 5.2%; P < .05) were greater among open patients. Both groups did not differ regarding pouch failure rates (8% versus 5.2%). There was no operative mortality in the present series.
CONCLUSIONS: (1) LAP IPAA is a safe procedure associated with a low conversion rate, (2) short-term results showed no clear advantages for both approaches, and (3) a greater risk of major late complications and late reoperations should be expected after open procedures.